23 Dec
2015
23 Dec
'15
5:14 p.m.
Hey Fons!
I would not call your words "hilarious", but I certainly do not agree with
them. Even in the original discussion, if we want to go back to that, I
disagreed and wrote up a pretty lengthy reply.
Initially you said that I have misrepresented your views. And, of course, I
would like to be as accurate as possible and to avoid misrepresentation and
straw-men arguments. However, I have the right to simply disagree. And
whether in my talk I choose to be super academic about it or make it sound
hilarious is a matter of style.
But just to make it clear, my goal here is to make sure I am not
misrepresenting views or missing better arguments. So, to go through your
points so far:
1. You said that I did not name you - and I replied that I used words that
happened to be authored by you to demonstrate a more generic attitude. This
was not meant to be Fons quote. I hope this is cleared. Next time I will
not use that quote, I will simply rephrase it as a generic statement.
2. You say that there was a wider context and that the audience does not
know it. I do not agree that there is any additional context required for
the audience. I also do not see how in the talk I misrepresent your phrase.
If it is so, please explain what is this wider context and why this is a
misrepresentation. Otherwise I would not be able to act on your feedback.
3. Whether there are "right ideas" or not was not the topic of my talk and
I do not think that this can be misunderstood. Obviously, we are talking
about the right ideas relative to set goals, in this case functional
software. I will think over whether I can rephrase that, but in my talk I
did not make any emphasis on the words "right ideas" and, as one can
readily see, this was not a topic of discussion at all.
Thank you for your patience, Fons, I appreciate your feedback!